[martok2112]

Originally Posted by omegaman

Only a theory, but it could be the event that inspires the Kobyoshi Maru simulation for future starfleet crews.

A lot of times, a ship will also have two complement listings.

One which accounts for crew, and another which can account for just how many passengers the ship can accommodate.

It's very possible the Kelvin's accommodation stats could read something like

USS Kelvin
Crew: 320
Passengers: 480

Just spitballin' here.

But the escort theory is very sound.

[Cannibal]

I tend to agree with the escort theory.
Because if the aforementioned 800 lives saved by Kirk were actually on board the Kelvin he didn't exactly save them. Unless he somehow managed to get everyone evacuated and he went down with the ship.

[Livingston]

I never thought of this escort theory thing. I bought that there is 800 lives aboard the Kelvin. A random large number thrown out there. I honestly never thought bout it until you guys started questioning!

Good question.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by starbase63

So to put it in simpler terms, you agree with JJ apparent philosophy that "bigger is better."

Bigger bridge...

Bigger transporter room...

Bigger, wider corridors...

Bigger warp engines...

Not that it genuinely improves anything, it's just "better."

It doesn't improve anything, but the Enterprise seems big enough to have some roominess to it. Given the idea that there is a possibility that the upper decks and 'public' areas of the ship are roomier, there may be a trade of with different and slightly narrower and less impressive corridors the deeper you go in the ship.

Personally, I'm all for space onboard to swing a cat.

Originally Posted by Jed Starkiller

I think the Star Wars comparrison is that the Star Wars Sets tend to me more epic in look more detailed maybe. Just trying to help the understanding.

Agreed

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

I'm just amused that people are bickering over "Star Wars" sets intruding upon TREK when the last three SW films used tons of CGI environments and often no or minimal physical sets. Ironic that so many fans were thrilled last year to hear Abrams was attempting to build as many physical sets as possible to avoid greenscreen-abuse and give his film a solid reality... now that's suddenly a deficit.

Damning Abrams' efforts either way he can work isn't constructive criticism, it's just whining about not getting a fan's own way.

Everyone's a critic, and you can only please some of the people some of the time!

Originally Posted by stephenhiggins53

Unless I’ve missed it…I’m surprised no one has commented on the parallel situation with Kirk and his father.

“Your father was Captain of a starship for twelve minutes and saved 800 lives…”

This obviously doesn’t mean that George Kirk was a new captain and his command only lasted 12 minutes…it means that he (George) was forced into a situation in which he has to take command under emergency circumstances…facing imminent death.

“We don’t have a captain or a first officer…”

“Yeah we do…”

Is a direct callback of the moment foreshadowed earlier in the film, when, with no Captain, Kirk is called to live up to his father’s legacy.

Thus, Pike’s “I challenge you to do better…” line is finally paid off when Kirk takes command under emergency circumstances, perhaps even facing imminent death.

Intriguing.

Originally Posted by MissionTrek08

Exactly, and it provides a very interesting dramatic context (backstory) for Jim: his father died a hero in a moment of crisis, mixing pride and tragedy in the outcome for his son. Does Jim honor his father's sacrifice? Yes. As a child, would he also harbor anger that his father 'left him'? Probably. Does he want to follow in his father's footsteps with a Starfleet career? Maybe. Can he live up to that pressure of George's reputation? Difficult challenge.

Add to this equation his mother (also dying), his hardly-supportive uncle, and you have a turbulent brew of psychological contradictions in the head of James T. Kirk. He must rise above external and internal roadblocks to become the man, the captain, he is destined to be.

Sounds good to me!

Ditto!

Originally Posted by Saquist

Star Wars sets were digital...
they looked digital...

They did not impress, at least Abrams built physical sets.

Originally Posted by omegaman

I doubt it. I tend to think the Kelvin was escorting other vessels through or near the neutral zone and was attacked. The other vessels carrying George Kirks family managed to escape along with some of the Kelvin's crew.

Again, intriguing.

Originally Posted by Livingston

I never thought of this escort theory thing. I bought that there is 800 lives aboard the Kelvin. A random large number thrown out there. I honestly never thought bout it until you guys started questioning!

Good question.

I had too, so I guess it adds more questions in for the movie!

[yetanotherusername]

My own view is that I'm a canonite and a Next Gen-er. Although I quite liked the old-school movies, I'm not much of a fan of TOS.

However, after the constant irritation of ENT bending canon [and sensible, generally accepted fanon] to breaking point, (while still insisting it was perfectly canonical) I'm glad Trek XI is just set in a parallel universe/altered timeline. Not ideal, but better than nothing.

It's throwing a bone to fans like me and allows me to, erm, 'relax' a little.

My favourite part in Trailer 3 was Nero saying, 'James Kirk was a great man, but that was another life' - which is a nod to the fans that followed the Shat-Kirk, and an acknowledgement that this isn't rewriting that history - but rather that it's another 'life'.

I'm just grateful it wasn't a Batman Begins style reboot without explanation.

And Eric Bana is the best actor to happen to Trek since Patrick Stewart, so good job there.

Sure I would have preferred an all-new Trek movie set in the 24th century or beyond, but hey, at least this isn't Enterprise. I'm grateful for that!